Shiheiber v. Hernandez ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 IBRAHIM NIMER SHIHEIBER, 7 Case No. 21-cv-00609-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 LEAVE FOR MOTION FOR BRETT HERNANDEZ, RECONSIDERATION 10 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 116 11 12 13 Defendant has filed a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion”) 14 asking the Court for leave to bring a motion to reconsider its ruling at the October 20, 2023 15 pretrial conference that Plaintiff adequately asserted a federal false arrest claim in the operative 16 complaint and therefore may proceed with that claim at trial. 17 Defendant relies on Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), providing that a motion for reconsideration 18 may be permitted where there is “[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or 19 dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.” 20 Defendant’s argument fails for two reasons. First, the argument Defendant now makes – that he 21 could have defended against a false arrest claim based on the fact that Plaintiff committed parking 22 violations in front of him and therefore he had probable cause to make a discretionary arrest under 23 Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001) – was not presented to the Court before it 24 made it’s ruling, although the Court offered Defendant’s counsel an opportunity at the pretrial 25 conference to address whether Plaintiff should be permitted to assert a false arrest claim at trial. In 26 particular, the undersigned told Mr. Hannalwalt that he would be “happy to take argument” on this 27 question and Mr. Hannawalt expressly declined to make any argument. 1 it twice in his pretrial papers (in his trial brief and in opposing Plaintiff’s proposed jury instruction 2 for false arrest) and Plaintiff responded in his trial brief. While that brief was, admittedly, filed 3 late, it was filed four days before the pretrial conference and included a lengthy discussion of why 4 the false arrest claim was adequately asserted in the operative complaint. Defendant, therefore, 5 had no reason not to expect that this issue would come up at the pretrial conference and it is 6 entirely reasonable for the Court to find that he waived any argument on this question when he 7 declined to argue the question. 8 Second, even if the argument in the Motion had been raised at the pretrial conference, it 9 misses the mark. The question before the Court was whether the Plaintiff, who was representing 10 himself when the Second Amended Complaint was filed, sufficiently asserted the false arrest 11 claim in his Second Amended Complaint. It was not whether Defendant, if he had understood 12 that the claim was being asserted, might have had a viable defense to that claim on summary 13 judgment. Defendant does not make any argument at all in the Motion addressing the Court’s 14 conclusion that it was apparent in the Second Amended Complaint that Plaintiff was asserting 15 both an unlawful detention claim and a false arrest claim. 16 Furthermore, the Court finds no reason to reconsider its conclusion on that question. As 17 Plaintiff pointed out in his trial brief, while the elements of a claim for an unreasonably prolonged 18 detention and an unlawful arrest are somewhat different, the theories are closely related. That is 19 particularly true under the facts of this case, where the detention may (or may not) have ripened 20 into an arrest requiring probable cause. Indeed, it is apparent from Defendant’s summary 21 judgment motion that counsel understood the close relationship between the two theories, 22 asserting that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the unlawful detention claim 23 because Plaintiff, after being lawfully detained on the basis of the traffic infraction the Officers 24 witnessed, had resisted the pat-down, giving rise to probable cause to arrest for resisting arrest. 25 See dkt. no. 49 at 3. Moreover, in the Second Amended Complaint Plaintiff complained of being 26 held in handcuffs in the squad car for 30 minutes without “warranted cause.” As Defendant has 27 repeatedly referred to this detention as an arrest and relied on evidence that Plaintiff was resisting 1 to proceed with his false arrest claim at trial rings hollow. 2 That said, Defendant has not waived his argument on the merits that because he witnessed 3 || the traffic stop, he had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, thus defeating Plaintiff’s false arrest 4 || claim. The Court will consider that question at the November 3, 2023 pretrial conference, 5 || though it may or may not decide the issue at that time. The parties should be prepared to 6 || address the merits of Defendant’s defense to the false arrest claim and the implications of 7 || including this claim at trial for the conduct of the trial. 8 The Motion is DENIED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: October 27, 2023 a (12 € JQSEPH C. SPERO 13 nited States Magistrate Judge © 15 16 & = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28